“Using a joint project’s servers isn’t SaaS because the computing you do in this way isn’t yours personally. For instance, if you edit pages on Wikipedia, you are not doing your own computing; rather, you are collaborating in Wikipedia’s computing.”
With a lot of people in town for the LibrePlanet conference, we decided to have a little event of our own.
“The end game is now in sight. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to become law within the next 6 weeks. It introduces orphan works usage rights, which – unless amended, which HMG says it will not – will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.
Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist, since there is no ineradicable way of associating ownership details short of plastering your name right across the image. Photographer’s organisations have pressed hard for mandatory attribution to deter orphans being manufactured. Early in the consultation process the IPO accepted the irresistible logic that it was completely unreasonable to permit orphan use without a balancing requirement to not orphan photos in the first place. However, the IPO recognised with dismay that this would mean “taking on Rupert” (Murdoch).
Publishers have a long history of opposing our moral rights. They were responsible for the feeble and unenforceable moral rights clauses in the 1988 Act. They want their branding, not ours, and they want maximum freedom to exploit our IP at minimum cost and inconvenience.
The IPO avoided confrontation with Murdoch, who does have something of a rep for being a vital friend in an election year. The Bill contains no deterrent to the creation of orphans, no penalties for anonymising your work, no requirement for bylines. It is a luncheon voucher for industry hungry for free and cheap content.So Flickr, Google Images, personal websites, all of it will become commercial publishers’ photolibrary. A fee will have to be deposited with a collecting society in case the owner spots the usage. The author who discovers his work has been used as an orphan can then make a claim and receive a percentage of the peanuts, after the collecting society has had its share, and the government its share. […]“
I disagree with this argument for two reasons.
“DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society, today welcomed the Government’s publication of the Digital Economy Bill, in particular the provisions for the modernisation of the copyright licensing system and access to orphan works.The bill paves the way for the introduction of extended collective licensing which will make it simpler for visual works to be made available, while ensuring creators’ rights are respected.”
I do not welcome the Digital Economy Bill, due to its illiberal and economically harmful “three strikes” legislation and other detrimental measures. But if the bill is passed then the responses by organizations like DACS to the orphan works measures that it contains will help photographers, illustrators and artists to see their work used without payment or attribution much less, rather than much more.
“Orphan Works” are copyrighted works where the rightsholder cannot be
located to grant permission for the work to be used, usually some
decades after the fact. They are a real and growing problem. One of the
several positive features of the Gowers Report was its recommendation
that this problem be tackled by the government.
Orphan works legislation was shouted down last year in the US. The
reaction against the proposed legislation there was led by minor trade
groups and concerned amateurs who stood to benefit financially or
psychologically from defeating it.
A similar panic about the Digital Economy Bill’s clause 42 has arisen
on the Internet here. Any professional illustrator or photographer will
belong to an organization such as DACS that administers the copyright
of their works. Yet a lot of familiar nonsense about the DEB imposing
onerous new registration procedures and costs and “destroying
copyright” has suddenly sprung up.
I don’t support bad legislation. The DEB needs throwing out. If it is
not thrown out then clause 42 needs discussion and revision. But orphan
works legislation is needed and does not place an undue burden on the
(often soi disant) work-for-hire professionals who seem, frankly, most
afraid of it. Since the arguments against orphan works legislation here
are the same as in the US so, broadly, are the answers to them –
Furtherfield have published my review of the “Digital Pioneers” show at the V&A –